Mr. Adams wrote to me pressingly to join him in London immediately …I accordingly left Paris on the 1st. of March, and on my arrival in London we agreed on a very summary form of treaty … On my presentation as usual to the King and Queen at their levees [receptions], it was impossible for anything to be more ungracious than their notice of Mr. Adams & myself. I saw at once that the ulcerations in the narrow mind of that mulish being left nothing to be expected on the subject of my attendance;
Patrick Lee’s Explanation
It is hard, but often wise, for leaders to overlook past offenses.
In June 1785, John Adams was appointed Minister to England. A month later, Jefferson succeeded Benjamin Franklin as Ambassador to France. Adams thought he saw a softening of England’s position toward the U.S. and asked Jefferson to join him in hopes of negotiating a new commercial treaty between the two nations.
Those hopes were dashed when the two ministers were presented to the King. He ignored them. Jefferson concluded he could expect nothing from the King, whom he called stubborn, narrow-minded, and damaged in his thinking.
Not sticking up for the King, you understand, but consider the situation: In the preceding nine years, America had savaged the King in the Declaration of Independence, beaten him on the battlefield, deprived him of wealthy colonies and humiliated him before the world. Now, two representatives of those same upstart colonies stood before him seeking a trade agreement. It would have taken a very wise and open-minded leader to accept them.
Jefferson and Adams were willing to leave the past behind and move forward in a manner that would benefit both nations. The King was not.